The “appeal” supported the dismissal of the case

A manager demands the imposition of guardianship on the company after her dismissal

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting the request of a former director of a company and a share in the capital, imposing judicial receivership on the company after its dismissal by the general assembly of the company, and appointing a new manager in its place, and the court ruled to uphold the appealed ruling and oblige the appellant to pay expenses.

In the details, a former director of a company and a shareholder in the capital, filed a lawsuit against the company and two interlocutors, in which she urgently requested the imposition of judicial receivership on the company, and the appointment of a judicial guard over it to carry out management work to preserve the company's funds, deposit its money and distribute it to the partners.

The court of first instance deliberated the case and the plaintiff requested the entry of the rest of the partners, while a lawyer on behalf of the company and the two parties attended, and submitted a memorandum requesting that the urgent judiciary does not qualitatively consider the case for the absence of the urgent risk of a decision by the General Assembly dismissing the plaintiff from the management of the company in dispute, and appointing the second entry opponent as director Due to the management's transgressions and its desire to acquire the share of the rest of the partners, the court ruled, in a summary matter, to accept the request to enter the rest of the partners in the defendant company in terms of form, and the court's lack of specific jurisdiction to hear the case, and obligating the plaintiff to pay all expenses in return for attorneys' fees.

This court did not accept the plaintiff, so she appealed against him with the appeal, while the attorney of the appellant submitted a reply request requesting the rejection of the appeal, upholding the judgment of the court of first degree regarding the ruling, and obligating the appellant to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees for the two levels of litigation.

For its part, the Court of Appeal stated in its ruling that for the imposition of judicial receivership on the money it is a condition that a serious dispute arises in the matter of this money, that there is an urgent risk of the money remaining in the hands of its holder (urgency and not prejudice to the origin of the right), that the money is capable of being entrusted with it. To third parties to guard it, and failure of one of these conditions leads to the judge ruling that the court has no specific competence to hear the case, and that the assessment of the availability of these conditions is up to the court whenever its assessment is valid.

The court confirmed that the company’s money is under the management of the third appellant, and that it represents the opinion of the majority, so what he decides regarding management is enforceable on all, especially since his mismanagement has not been proven, which negates the element of urgent danger in the case, and that the dispute raised by the appellant about The director's actions are not in line with what has been explained previously, and are subject to the principle of the right, which is forbidden for the urgent judicial court to discuss it, and the court decided to accept the appeal formally, and in the matter to reject it and support the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay expenses.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news